I've used differential in my own events for a long time, nice to see it's the new official. Very nice indeed.

I'm not a fan. SOS may be a bit more complicated, but I think it is a better tiebreaker than margin of victory.

Note to coroner: please ignore any indications that I kicked it in the ribs several times postmortem.

EDIT:

I'm not a fan. SOS may be a bit more complicated, but I think it is a better tiebreaker than margin of victory.

SOS has a number of mathematical problems that make it only tenuously related to skill level, and when you factor in the effect of drops, it's very close to arbitrary/random.

Margin of victory isn't perfect, but it's at least based on things that actually happen in your games rather than how well your randomly assigned first-round opponent performs.

So how will the new method work out? (I'm at work and can't download a darn thing)

Margin of Victory
At the end of each match, the player who has destroyed more squad points
adds the amount by which his score exceeds his opponent’s score to 100
and records it on his score sheet. The player who has destroyed fewer squad
points subtracts the same amount from 100 and records it on his score sheet.
End of match example:
Anakin wins the game, destroying 53 squad
points of his opponent’s ships. Anakin’s opponent, Biggs, has
destroyed 24 points of Anakin’s ships. Anakin wins by 29 points,
which he adds to 100 for a margin of 129. Biggs loses by 29
points, which he subtracts from 100 for a margin of 71.
If a player destroys all of his opponents’ ships, he receives
If a player concedes the match, treat all of his remaining ships as destroyed.

Breaking Ties
If players have identical win-loss records, the tie is broken based upon Margin
of Victory. The player with the highest Margin of Victory wins the tie and
advances. If the players are still tied, calculate the strength of each player’s
schedule by combining total match points of all their opponents. The player
whose opponents had the highest total combined match points wins the tie
and advances.

So how will the new method work out? (I'm at work and can't download a darn thing)

Basically, after each match you get 100 points added to your score, plus points destroyed, minus points lost. If you blow your opponent out completely, your tiebreaker score rises relative to someone who won by a razor-thin margin.

(On the flip side, someone who loses by 6 points gets 94 points added to his or her tiebreaker score--much better than the 1 point added to the score of the person who lost all 99 points of his or her list.)

If a player destroys all of his opponents’ ships, he receives

It looks like the rest of this sentence was omitted... I'm going with "he receives a kick in the pants"

I wish they had done something to address shorted squadrons though... I don't feel like your margin should be affected by your opponent bringing fewer points.

I wish they had done something to address shorted squadrons though... I don't feel like your margin should be affected by your opponent bringing fewer points.

This was my exact thought when I read this. If you table your opponent its not an issue, but all the times you don't it can be a significant factor.

I could hear someone at FFG saying, well if they short themselves by more than a few points it will get MUCH harder to win.

I wish they had done something to address shorted squadrons though... I don't feel like your margin should be affected by your opponent bringing fewer points.

This was my exact thought when I read this. If you table your opponent its not an issue, but all the times you don't it can be a significant factor.

I could hear someone at FFG saying, well if they short themselves by more than a few points it will get MUCH harder to win.

If we go to time, kill points on both sides matter. I kill 60 and you kill 50, I get 110 points and you get 90.

But if I wipe someone out without losing anything, the points will be 200 or 199 for me, base on how many points they had. They still get zero, but because mine depends on how much I kill, if you have less for me to kill I get fewer points.

I wish they had done something to address shorted squadrons though... I don't feel like your margin should be affected by your opponent bringing fewer points.

This was my exact thought when I read this. If you table your opponent its not an issue, but all the times you don't it can be a significant factor.

I could hear someone at FFG saying, well if they short themselves by more than a few points it will get MUCH harder to win.

This has it backwards. It's only an issue if you table your opponent.

If we go to time, kill points on both sides matter. I kill 60 and you kill 50, I get 110 points and you get 90.

But if I wipe someone out without losing anything, the points will be 200 or 199 for me, base on how many points they had. They still get zero, but because mine depends on how much I kill, if you have less for me to kill I get fewer points.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. I would expect that if you table your opponent those points would be considered "killed" given that they are quite clearly not on the table. Maybe we need a FAQ (lol..)

"If a player destroys all of his opponent’s ships, his opponent’s squad is worth

Margin of Victory is not how much you destroyed, it's by how much. If you destroy all of your opponents ships, it still counts as 100, even if they only bring 90 to the table.

Reread the rules and the example:

At the end of each match, the player who has destroyed more squad points
adds the amount by which his score exceeds his opponent’s score to 100
and records it on his score sheet. The player who has destroyed fewer squad
points subtracts the same amount from 100 and records it on his score sheet.

End of match example: Anakin wins the game, destroying 53 squad
points of his opponent’s ships. Anakin’s opponent, Biggs, has
destroyed 24 points of Anakin’s ships. Anakin wins by 29 points,
which he adds to 100 for a margin of 129. Biggs loses by 29
points, which he subtracts from 100 for a margin of 71.

If a player destroys all of his opponent’s ships, his opponent’s squad is worth
100 squad points, even if it is worth fewer squad points to begin with.
If a player concedes the match, treat all of his remaining ships as destroyed.

Oh, nice. That's exactly what I did for my system too

Concern withdrawn!

For the record, I am glad SOS is dead, it cost me a top 4 spot at store champs.

This is an excellent change to the tournament rules. Beyond complications, the single worst aspect of SoS has been eliminated. Namely, that a first round loss all but guaranteed you were eliminated from contention no matter whether or not that first opponent went undefeated for the rest of the tournament. People who pulled top players round 1 and lost were penalized much too harshly.

This also eliminates the need to concede rather than take a modified loss (because modified losses were worse than full losses in the SoS system).

An altogether welcome change.

I'm very pleased with this new setup. SOS was never a good option, and I've seen several players not make the cut because of this.

This change is really good; now there's incentive to fight for every point.

I don't know why FFG didn't think of this prior to Regionals???

I think I like the "new" tie-breaker.

Also, there is, nor was, not such a thing as a "Modified Loss". There is/was only wins, modified win, loss, and draw.

I think I like the "new" tie-breaker.

Also, there is, nor was, not such a thing as a "Modified Loss". There is/was only wins, modified win, loss, and draw.

That is somewhat pedantic. A loss where your opponent had a "modified win" was 0 points, and 3 points for SoS. A loss where your opponent received a "win" was 0 points and 5 points for SoS. So the two were not the same thing, regardless of terminology, and a "modified loss" not only existed but it penalized a player for having a close fought defeat.

The new system avoids this, and avoids other even more arbitrary penalties.

I guess I see your point, but I personally would rather an opponent not get the full 5 pts for a win, than get the full 5 pts on my SoS. If you both end up with the same W/L ratio at the end of the tourny, then it is likely they would be placed higher than you with tie-breakers (conceding gave them all of your pts as destroyed). Tourny pts determined overall placement, so they were always more important than SoS.

I hear you, but the way matches were seeded it was far more likely for you to be tied with someone other than your initial opponent because you received 0 tournament points in either case. In a tiebreaker with someone who had the same number of tournament points, you were better off having a "full loss" than a "modified loss". It was just one of those annoying and unnecessary things where the system penalized good play, rather than rewarding it. It's good to have eliminated the problem and reward excellent play rather than penalize it.

This is an excellent change to the tournament rules. Beyond complications, the single worst aspect of SoS has been eliminated. Namely, that a first round loss all but guaranteed you were eliminated from contention no matter whether or not that first opponent went undefeated for the rest of the tournament. People who pulled top players round 1 and lost were penalized much too harshly.

This also eliminates the need to concede rather than take a modified loss (because modified losses were worse than full losses in the SoS system).

An altogether welcome change.

This happened to KO and myself at a regional and store championship. In a weird way losing round 1 is actually helpful for your tie breaker (if you're a highly skilled player) as you'll be more likely to get lower skilled opponents.

There is absolutely no perfect way to run a tournament and accurately seed players, but this will be so much simpler and work just fine the vast majority of the time. I remember having to help walk through a SOS evaluation (without software) for a TO at a tourney in the spring. He was confused and the last thing you want are TOs who become reluctant, as they will simply stop running tourneys. This is simple math. Good job.